Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards, 26854-26897 [2011-10510]

Agencies

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26854-26897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10510]



[[Page 26853]]

Vol. 76

Monday,

No. 89

May 9, 2011

Part III





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



49 CFR Parts 383, 384 and 385



Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit 
Standards; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Rules and 
Regulations

[[Page 26854]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 383, 384, and 385

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27659]
RIN 2126-AB02


Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's 
Permit Standards

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends the commercial driver's license (CDL) knowledge 
and skills testing standards and establishes new minimum Federal 
standards for States to issue the commercial learner's permit (CLP). 
The rule requires that a CLP holder meet virtually the same 
requirements as those for a CDL holder, meaning that a driver holding a 
CLP will be subject to the same driver disqualification penalties that 
apply to a CDL holder. This final rule also implements section 4019 of 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), section 
4122 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and section 703 of the 
Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act). 
It will enhance safety by ensuring that only qualified drivers are 
allowed to operate commercial motor vehicles on our nation's highways.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective on July 8, 2011.
    Compliance Date: States must be in compliance with the requirements 
in subpart B of Part 384 (49 CFR part 384) by July 8, 2014.
    Petitions for Reconsideration of any amendment made by this final 
rule must be received on or before June 8, 2011. Any petition for 
reconsideration submitted after this date will not be considered.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to Docket ID 
Number FMCSA-2007-27659 or RIN 2126-AB02, and be submitted to the 
Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, by any of 
the following methods:
     Mail to: Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (MC-A), West Building-6th Floor, Room W60-308, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand-Deliver: Docket Operations Unit, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building-Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov. 
All petitions for reconsideration will be posted on the Federal 
eRulemaking portal in Docket ``FMCSA-2007-27659''. This final rule and 
all background documents and material related to this rule may be 
viewed and copied at https://www.regulations.gov, by typing ``FMCSA-
2007-27659''. The docket may also be viewed and copied for a fee at the 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building-
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Redmond, Office of Safety 
Programs, Commercial Driver's License Division, telephone (202) 366-
5014 or e-mail robert.redmond@dot.gov. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
I. Legal Basis
II. Background
    A. Summary of This Rule
    B. History
III. Discussion of Comments on the NPRM
    1. Strengthen Legal Presence Requirement
    a. Required Forms/Documents
    b. Nonresident CDL
    2. Social Security Number Verification Before Issuing a CLP or 
CDL
    3. Surrender of CLP, CDL and Non-CDL Documents
    a. Surrender of Documents
    b. Mailing of Initial License
    4. CDL Testing Requirements for Out-of-State Driver Training 
School Students
    5. State Reciprocity for CLPs
    6. Minimum Uniform Standards for Issuing a CLP
    a. Passing the General Knowledge Test To Obtain a CLP
    b. Requiring the CLP To Be a Separate Document From the CDL or 
Non-CDL
    c. CLP Document Should Be Tamperproof
    d. Photograph on CLP
    e. Recording the CLP in CDLIS
    7. Maximum Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for CLP and CDL
    a. Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for a CLP
    b. Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for a CDL
    8. Establish a Minimum Age for CLP
    9. Preconditions To Taking the CDL Skills Test
    a. CLP Prerequisite for CDL
    b. CLP Holder Accompanied by CDL Holder
    c. Waiting Period To Take Skills Test
    d. Relationship to Entry Level Driver Training Rulemaking
    10. Limit Endorsements on CLP to Passenger (P) Only
    11. Methods of Administering CDL TESTS
    12. Update Federal Knowledge and Skills Test Standards
    a. Incorporate by Reference AAMVA 2005 CDL Test System
    b. Pre-Trip Inspection
    c. Skills Test Banking Prohibition
    d. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) Issues
    e. Removal of Sec.  383.77 (Substitution of Experience for 
Skills Tests)
    f. Covert Monitoring of State and Third Party Skills Test 
Examiners
    13. New Standardized Endorsements and Restriction Codes
    a. Uniform Endorsement Codes
    b. Testing Drivers on Vehicles With Air Brakes, Automatic 
Transmissions, and Non-Fifth Wheel Combination Vehicles
    c. Automatic Transmission Restriction
    d. Definition of Tank Vehicle
    14. Previous Driving Offenses by CLP Holders and CLP Applicants
    15. Motor Carrier Prohibitions
    16. Incorporate CLP-Related Regulatory Guidance Into Regulatory 
Text
    17. Incorporate Safe Port Act Provisions
    a. CDLs Obtained Through Fraud
    b. Computer System Controls--Supervisor Involvement
    c. Background Checks
    d. Training Requirements for Knowledge and Skills Examiners
    e. Minimum Number of Tests Conducted (Minimum Skills Tests for 
Testers and Examiners)
    f. Third Party Testing (Annual Inspection; Advance Scheduling of 
Tests; Separation of Training and Testing Functions)
    g. Third Party Bond Requirements
    18. Other Issues Related to Fraud Prevention
    a. Black and White Photograph
    b. Check Photograph on File
    c. Two Staff Members Verify Test Scores and Other Documents
    19. Miscellaneous Comments
    a. Applicability to Agricultural Sector
    b. Relation to REAL ID
    c. Domicile
    d. State Compliance Issues
IV. Changes to the Proposed Rule in This Final Rule
    Changes to Conform Rule With Medical Certification Final Rule
    Terminology Changes Throughout
    Part 383--Commercial Driver's License Standards; Requirements 
and Penalties
    Part 384--State Compliance With Commercial Driver's License 
Program
    Part 385--Safety Fitness Procedures
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
    Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    Privacy Impact Assessment
    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
    Paperwork Reduction Act

[[Page 26855]]

    National Environmental Policy Act
    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
List of Subjects
The Final Rule

I. Legal Basis

    This rule is based on the broad authority of the Commercial Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (Pub. L. 99-570, Title XII, 100 
Stat. 3207-170, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313); the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 
1984 (MCSA) (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, 49 U.S.C. 31136); 
and the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (MCA) (Chapter 498, 49 Stat. 543, 49 
U.S.C. 31502). It is also based on section 4019 of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), section 4122 of the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, at 1734, 49 
U.S.C. 31302, 31308, and 31309); and section 703 of the Security and 
Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) (Pub. L. 109-
347, 120 Stat. 1884, at 1944).
    The CMVSA required the Secretary of Transportation, after 
consultation with the States, to prescribe regulations on minimum 
uniform standards for the issuance of commercial driver's licenses 
(CDLs) by the States and for information to be contained on each 
license (49 U.S.C. 31305, 31308). The CMVSA also authorized the 
Secretary to adopt regulations for a learner's permit (49 U.S.C. 
31305(b)(2)). Paragraph (c) of 49 CFR 383.23 addresses the learner's 
permit by ratifying the States' regulations on this subject, provided 
they comply with certain Federal requirements. This final rule 
establishes a Federal requirement for a commercial learner's permit 
(CLP) as a pre-condition for issuing a CDL and also adopts various 
other changes to enhance the CDL program.
    The MCSA conferred authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, 
and commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). It required the Secretary of 
Transportation to ``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle 
safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for 
commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure 
that: (1) Commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, 
and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of 
commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the 
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial 
motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles 
safely; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not 
have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators'' 
(49 U.S.C. 31136(a)).
    This final rule, like the CDL regulations, is based in part on the 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) and (2) that CMVs be ``operated 
safely'' and that ``the responsibilities imposed on [CMV drivers] do 
not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely.'' The changes 
to 49 CFR part 383 of this rule will help to ensure that drivers who 
operate CMVs are licensed to do so and that they do not operate CMVs 
without having passed the requisite tests.
    The MCA authorized the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 
requirements for the ``qualifications * * * of employees'' of for-hire 
and private motor carriers (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)). This rule, like the 
CDL regulations, is based in part on that authority and is intended to 
enhance the qualifications of CMV drivers by ensuring that they obtain 
a CLP before applying for a CDL.
    Section 4019 of TEA-21 required the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) to complete a review of the CDL testing system to determine if 
the current CDL system is an accurate measure of an individual's 
knowledge and skills as an operator of a CMV. It also authorized the 
Agency to issue regulations reflecting the results of its review. This 
rule includes new or enhanced requirements adopted in response to the 
Agency's review.
    Section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU required the DOT to prescribe 
regulations on minimum uniform standards for the issuance of CLPs, as 
it has already done for CDLs (49 U.S.C. 31308(2)). More specifically, 
section 4122 provided that an applicant for a CLP must first pass a 
knowledge test which complies with minimum standards prescribed by the 
Secretary and may have only one CLP at a time; that the CLP document 
must have the same information and security features as the CDL; and 
that a driver's record must be created for each CLP holder in the 
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS).\1\ This rule 
includes each of those requirements, as explained in more detail in the 
preamble to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CDLIS is an information system that allows the exchange of 
commercial driver licensing information among all the States. CDLIS 
includes the databases of fifty-one licensing jurisdictions and the 
CDLIS Central Site, all connected by a telecommunications network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 703(a) of the SAFE Port Act required the Secretary of 
Transportation to issue regulations implementing the recommendations 
contained in a memorandum issued by the DOT's Office of the Inspector 
General (OIG) on June 4, 2004, concerning verification of the legal 
status of commercial drivers. Section 703(b) required the Secretary, in 
cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, to issue a 
regulation to implement the recommendations contained in a report 
issued by the OIG on February 7, 2006 [``Oversight of the Commercial 
Driver's License Program''] that set forth steps needed to improve 
anti-fraud measures in the CDL program. In a 2002 CDL audit report, the 
OIG recommended that FMCSA require testing protocols and performance 
oriented requirements for English language proficiency. This final rule 
incorporates all of the OIG's recommendations. A discussion of these 
recommendations can be found in the preamble to the NPRM for this rule. 
Many of the operational procedures suggested by the OIG for carrying 
out the recommendations have also been adopted.
    In addition to the specific legal authorities discussed above, 
FMCSA is required, before prescribing regulations, to consider the 
``costs and benefits'' of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A), 
31502(d)). The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for this rule 
discusses those issues more comprehensively in a separate document 
filed in the docket.

II. Background

Acronyms and Terms Used in This Document

AAMVA-- American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
CDL--Commercial Driver's License
CDLIS--Commercial Driver's License Information System
CLP--Commercial Learner's Permit
CMV--Commercial Motor Vehicle
CMVSA-- Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
DHS--Department of Homeland Security
FHWA--Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
GCWR--Gross Combination Weight Rating
GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
IBR--Incorporated by Reference
N--Tank Vehicle Endorsement
Non-CDL--Non-Commercial Driver's License
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OIG--Office of Inspector General
P--Passenger Endorsement
PDPS--Problem Driver Pointer System
S--School Bus Endorsement
SDLA--State Driver Licensing Agency
SSA--Social Security Administration
SSN--Social Security Number

A. Summary of This Rule

    FMCSA adopts the following revisions to the CDL knowledge and 
skills testing standards in response to

[[Page 26856]]

the statutory mandates and OIG recommendations:
    (1) Knowledge and skills testing requirements.
    Successful completion of the knowledge test, currently a 
prerequisite for the CDL, is required before issuance of the CLP. This 
rule requires States to use driver and examiner reference materials, 
State testing questions and exercises, and State testing methodologies 
(herein referred to as State Testing System) that FMCSA has pre-
approved. The State Testing System must be comparable to AAMVA's 2005 
CDL Test System (July 2010 Version) for knowledge and skill standards, 
which FMCSA approves in this rule. It includes a prohibition on use of 
foreign language interpreters in the administration of the knowledge 
and skills tests, to reduce the potential for fraud.
    (2) Standards for issuing CLPs and CDLs.
    This rule specifically requires that each applicant obtain a CLP 
and hold it for a minimum of 14 days before applying for a CDL. It 
establishes a minimum age of 18 for issuance of a CLP. The CLP must be 
a separate document from the CDL or non-CDL,\2\ must be tamperproof to 
the extent possible, and must include the same information as the CDL. 
The only endorsements allowed on the CLP are a restricted passenger (P) 
endorsement, a school bus (S) endorsement, and a tank vehicle (N) 
endorsement. Each State is required to create a CDLIS record for each 
CLP it issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``non-CDL'' is any other type of motor vehicle license, 
such as an automobile driver's license, a chauffeur's license, or a 
motorcycle license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before issuing a CLP, the issuing State is required to perform a 
check of the driver's previous driving record using both CDLIS and the 
PDPS to ensure the driver is not subject to the sanctions of Sec.  
383.51, based on previous motor vehicle violations. If the State 
discovers that the driver is subject to such sanctions, it must refuse 
to issue a CLP to the driver.
    This rule strengthens the legal presence requirements and increases 
the documentation required for CLP and CDL applicants to demonstrate 
their legal presence in the United States. For example, SDLAs are 
required to verify the applicant's SSN with the SSA. The rule also 
addresses applicants who wish to attend a driver training school in a 
State other than the applicant's State of domicile. States are required 
to recognize CLPs issued by other States for training purposes. The 
rule limits the initial and renewal periods for both CLPs and CDLs. It 
clarifies under what circumstances an applicant must surrender his/her 
CLP, CDL, or non-CDL. It also requires all States to use standardized 
endorsement and restriction codes on CDLs.
    Many of the program areas and issues dealt with in this rule are 
also addressed in DHS's final rule implementing the REAL ID Act 
(``Minimum Standards for Driver's Licenses and Identification Cards 
Acceptable by Federal Agencies for Official Purposes,'' 73 FR 5272, 
January 29, 2008, codified in 6 CFR part 37). FMCSA and DHS have 
coordinated efforts to write regulations that neither overlap nor 
conflict. The two agencies and the relevant statutory authority 
underlying these two rules serve different purposes. Although in some 
limited instances FMCSA has incorporated similar or identical 
requirements into this final rule, it does not adopt REAL ID or 
incorporate it by reference either wholly or in part.
    (3) Measures for prevention of fraud.
    This rule includes requirements to improve the ability of States to 
detect and prevent fraudulent testing and licensing activity in the CDL 
program. These measures include the following:
     Requiring verification of social security numbers.
     Requiring CLP and CDL applicants to prove legal presence 
in the United States.
     Requiring that a digitized photo of the driver be 
preserved by the State driver licensing agency.
     Requiring computer system controls to allow overrides by 
supervisory personnel only.
     Requiring background checks and formal training for all 
test examiners.
     Requiring the establishment of oversight systems for all 
examiners and testers (including third parties).
     Disallowing the use of language interpreters for the 
knowledge and skills tests.
    In addition, amendments to part 384 require these items to be 
reviewed whenever FMCSA conducts a CDL compliance review of a State 
program. States found in substantial non-compliance with these fraud 
control measures, as well as the other requirements of part 384, may be 
subject to the loss of Federal-aid highway funds.
    (4) Other regulatory changes.
    The rule specifically prohibits a motor carrier from using a driver 
who does not hold a current and appropriate CLP or CDL to operate a CMV 
and from using a driver to operate a vehicle in violation of the 
restrictions on the CLP or CDL. It also incorporates into the 
regulations current FMCSA guidance related to issues addressed by this 
rulemaking (currently available on the Internet at ``Guidance for 
Regulations,'' at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrguide.asp?section_type=G). Finally, this 
rule includes minor editorial corrections and updates.

B. History

    The CDL program was established by the CMVSA of 1986. Parts 383 and 
384 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, implement the CMVSA 
requirements. The CMVSA prohibits any person who does not hold a valid 
CDL or learner's permit issued by his/her State of domicile from 
operating a CMV that requires a driver with a CDL. The prohibition 
further affects driver training activities by limiting trainees to 
their State of domicile to (1) receive training and behind-the-wheel 
experience, and (2) take the knowledge and skills tests necessary to be 
issued a CDL. This has caused problems because commercial driver 
training facilities and the type of training needed are not equally 
available in all States.
    To address this and other issues, such as a lack of uniformity in 
the duration of learner's permits, associated driver history 
recordkeeping, and test reciprocity among States, the FHWA published an 
NPRM on August 22, 1990 (55 FR 34478). (In the discussion below, the 
responsible agency is referred to as the FMCSA, regardless of whether 
the action described occurred before or after the transfer of 
responsibility from FHWA to FMCSA in January 2000.)
    Since the 1990 NPRM, major changes have occurred in the CDL program 
through legislation, other rulemakings, regulatory guidance, and policy 
decisions. For example, in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist 
attacks, and because issuance of CDLs to unqualified persons and 
persons with false identities significantly complicated detection and 
prevention of fraud, Congress and FMCSA expanded the scope of the CDL 
program to include issues related to fraud and security. All of these 
major changes made the 1990 proposal obsolete. Thus, FMCSA withdrew the 
1990 NPRM on February 23, 2006 (71 FR 42741). FMCSA issued a new NPRM 
on April 9, 2008 (73 FR 19282) to address these issues and establish 
regulatory changes to implement section 4019 of TEA-21, section 4122 of 
SAFETEA-LU, and section 703 of the SAFE Port Act.

III. Discussion of Comments on the NPRM

    On April 9, 2008 FMCSA published an NPRM (73 FR 19282) to revise 
the

[[Page 26857]]

standards for CDL testing and to require new standards for a CLP. 
Comments were initially due by June 9, 2008. However, in response to 
several requests, FMCSA extended the comment period until July 9, 2008 
(73 FR 32520). In response to the NPRM, FMCSA received 103 comments. 
Commenters included representatives from Federal, State, and local 
government and enforcement agencies, industry, trade associations, 
advocacy groups, driver trainers, commercial motor vehicle drivers, 
individuals and national associations representing various 
transportation interests. Table 1 presents a commenter name and 
abbreviation list.

                       Table 1--List of Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Name of commenter                     Abbreviated name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates for Highway and Auto     Advocates.
 Safety.
Alabama Department of Public       Alabama.
 Safety.
American Moving and Storage        AMSA.
 Association.
Arkansas Department of Finance     Arkansas.
 and Administration.
U.S. Department of the Army......  Army.
American Trucking Associations...  ATA.
B-J School Buses, Inc............  B-J School Bus.
California Department of Motor     California.
 Vehicles.
C.R. England, Inc................  CR England.
CRST Van Expedited, Inc..........  CRST.
California Trucking Association..  CTA.
Commercial Vehicle Training        CVTA.
 Association, Inc.
Delaware Department of             Delaware.
 Transportation, DMV.
Driver Holdings, LLC.............  Driver Holdings.
Elgin Community College..........  Elgin CC.
Farris Brothers, Inc.............  Farris Bros.
Florence School District One.....  Florence S-D.
Florida Dept of Highway Safety     Florida.
 and Motor Vehicles.
Georgia Department of Driver       Georgia.
 Services.
Idaho Department of Motor          Idaho.
 Vehicles.
Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical   IFCA.
 Assoc.
Driver Services Dept--Illinois     Illinois.
 Office of the Secretary of State.
Indiana Association of Rural       Indiana Rural Electrics.
 Electric Cooperatives.
International Union of Operating   IUOE.
 Engineers National Training Fund.
Joint School District 2,  Joint School District.
 Idaho 2.
John Wood Community College......  Wood CC.
Louisiana Office of Motor          Louisiana.
 Vehicles.
Michigan Department of State.....  Michigan.
Minnesota Department of Public     Minnesota.
 Safety.
Missouri Department of Revenue &   Missouri.
 Missouri State Highway Patrol;
 Missouri Department of
 Transportation.
National Automobile Dealers        NADA.
 Association.
Nebraska Agri-Business             NE Agri-Business.
 Association.
Nebraska Department of Motor       Nebraska.
 Vehicles.
New York DMV Motor Carrier Bureau  New York.
North Dakota Department of         North Dakota.
 Transportation.
National School Transportation     NSTA.
 Association.
Ohio State Highway Patrol........  Ohio.
Oklahoma Department of Public      Oklahoma.
 Safety.
Owner-Operator Independent         OOIDA.
 Drivers Association, Inc.
Oregon DMV.......................  Oregon.
Pennsylvania Department of         Pennsylvania.
 Transportation.
Schneider National, Inc..........  Schneider.
South Carolina DMV...............  South Carolina.
South Dakota Driver Licensing      South Dakota.
 Program.
Truckload Carriers Association...  TCA.
Tennessee Department of Safety...  Tennessee.
Texas Dept of Public Safety......  Texas.
Commonwealth of Virginia DMV.....  Virginia.
Washington State Dept of           Washington.
 Licensing.
Wisconsin Dept of Transportation.  Wisconsin.
Winkle Bus Company...............  Winkle.
Wyoming Joint Transportation,      Wyoming.
 Highways & Military Affairs
 Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule responds to the comments received on the 17 issues 
addressed in the NPRM preamble. The 18th section addresses issues 
related to fraud prevention and the 19th section addresses 
miscellaneous comments not specifically associated with any of the 17 
original issues or fraud prevention.
1. Strengthen Legal Presence Requirement
a. Required Forms/Documents
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec.  383.71 to include a list of 
acceptable documents to prove citizenship or legal presence.
    Comments. Advocates, CRST, Elgin CC and the State of Tennessee 
supported the proposed change. DHS recommended either using the list of 
acceptable documents for establishing lawful status, which it published 
as a part of the REAL ID rule, or adopting REAL ID's method for 
verifying lawful

[[Page 26858]]

status. Michigan supported harmonizing requirements with REAL ID.
    FMCSA Response. The final rule adopts the appropriate documents 
from the most recent list that DHS adopted for proof of citizenship or 
legal presence under REAL ID. (See 73 FR 5272; January 29, 2008.) Use 
of this list will ensure greater compatibility with DHS programs 
including REAL ID.
b. Nonresident CDL
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec. Sec.  383.5, 383.23, 383.71 and 383.73 
to reinforce ``State of domicile,'' as previously defined in the 
regulations, by specifying that a State may only issue a CLP or CDL to 
an applicant who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Under 
the proposal, applicants domiciled either in a foreign country other 
than those granted reciprocity by the Administrator, or in a State that 
had its CDL program decertified may be issued a Nonresident CLP or CDL.
    Comments. DHS objected to the term ``Nonresident'' because it is 
used differently for immigration purposes and could cause confusion. 
Under their current systems, Florida and New York already issue 
licenses to drivers who would qualify for Nonresident CLPs and CDLs 
under the proposed rule, but object to the change on the grounds that 
it would be burdensome to create a new category of license. Virginia 
does not currently issue CDLs to drivers domiciled in foreign countries 
and is opposed to expending resources to create this new category of 
license. Tennessee objected to Nonresident CLPs and CDLs without 
explanation.
    FMCSA Response. The final rule changes the term ``Nonresident'' to 
``Non-domiciled'' for both CLPs and CDLs. This change will provide 
greater consistency with FMCSA's authorizing statute, which bases 
jurisdictional authority to issue CDLs on domicile, not residency. In 
addition, the change to ``Non-domiciled'' will avoid confusion and 
eliminate any actual or perceived conflicts with DHS' immigration 
programs. Other than the change to ``Non-domiciled,'' the rule remains 
as proposed in the final rule.
2. Social Security Number Verification Before Issuing a CLP or CDL
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec.  383.73(g) to require States to verify 
certain identifying information (e.g., name, date of birth, and SSN) 
submitted on the license application with the information on file with 
the SSA. The States would be prohibited from issuing, renewing, 
upgrading, or transferring a CDL if the information in the SSA database 
does not match applicant-provided data. FMCSA proposed that the SSN 
verification would only have to be performed once for each CLP or CDL 
applicant if a notation is placed on the driver record that the 
verification was done and the results matched information provided by 
the applicant.
    Comments. Georgia, Michigan, NADA, AMSA, and a community college 
support the proposal. Minnesota commented that the proposal may not 
consistently protect against or identify those applicants presenting 
false identities and that the process is burdensome and cost 
prohibitive. CRST supports the proposal only if the States are capable 
of managing the process without delays. Farris Bros. expressed concerns 
about privacy and information security. New York requested an exemption 
to this provision when an applicant presents a letter confirming the 
applicant has resolved a problem with a name or date of birth not 
matching the information in the SSA database.
    FMCSA Response. The SSN verification requirement remains as 
proposed in the NPRM. FMCSA views this requirement as a basic yet 
critical fraud prevention measure. FMCSA disagrees that this 
requirement is burdensome. Approximately 45 States currently conduct 
SSN verification for CDL applicants. Furthermore, verification is 
neither a lengthy process nor expensive (approximately $.025 for batch 
and $.03 for online transactions). FMCSA declines to adopt New York's 
exemption request. Verifying directly with the SSA that an applicant's 
name, date of birth and SSN all match after a discrepancy has been 
resolved is necessary to prevent fraud.
3. Surrender Of CLP, CDL and Non-CDL Documents
a. Surrender of Documents
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec. Sec.  383.71, 383.73 and 384.211 and 
adding Sec.  383.25 to expand the current CLP and CDL surrender 
requirements to include any transaction where a CLP is being upgraded 
or a CDL is being initially issued, upgraded, or transferred.
    Comments. Florida and a community college support the proposal. 
Advocates supports the proposal but states that the language is 
ambiguous as to whether it is mandatory or optional. Georgia commented 
that 49 CFR 384.211 requires CDL applicants to surrender all previously 
issued CDLs and, therefore, it already complies with the proposed rule. 
Delaware commented that the proposal is unnecessary because an 
applicant's identity can be verified through other documents and 
electronic systems. New York commented that since it does not issue 
over-the-counter documents, applicants could be without any photo 
identification until the new or replaced CLP or CDL arrives in the 
mail. New York suggested perforating instead of surrendering documents. 
Michigan suggested that the Agency adopt a standardized document 
invalidation process such as clipping the corner of the prior document. 
Minnesota complained that finding a vendor to perforate old documents 
with the word ``VOID'' would be expensive.
    FMCSA Response. The surrender requirement is mandatory and remains 
as proposed. FMCSA disagrees that it is unnecessary to surrender prior 
documents. The surrender requirement is necessary to prevent fraud in 
the form of a driver holding more than one CDL document. Moreover, the 
rules recognize that not all States issue CDL documents over-the-
counter and include an alternative standardized document invalidation 
process. As proposed in the NPRM, FMCSA is incorporating its guidance 
on stewardship requirements for surrendered documents into the final 
rule. As a result, the final rule provides for an alternative to 
surrender: Perforating old documents with the word ``VOID.''
b. Mailing of Initial License
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec.  383.73 to require that States may 
only issue an initial CDL or CLP by mailing it to the address a driver 
provided on his/her application form.
    Comments. South Dakota opposed issuing CLPs by mail because States 
with over-the-counter procedures would have to develop special 
procedures. Florida claimed that the benefits associated with this 
change do not justify the costs required to establish a mailing system. 
North Dakota and Oklahoma argued that the proof of domicile requirement 
renders the mailing requirement unnecessary. Oklahoma further 
complained that forcing States to adopt central issuance would be 
costly. Tennessee questioned whether FMCSA is in fact requiring all 
States to change to a central issuance system. Georgia commented that 
if mailing is required, then States should be able to issue interim 
temporary CDLs over-the-counter. Illinois stated that unless the States 
are permitted to choose between mailing and implementing an address 
verification program, FMCSA is essentially mandating that the State 
adopt central issuance. Michigan does not believe that its practice of 
issuing CDLs and CLPs

[[Page 26859]]

over-the-counter contributes to fraud. ATA, Driver Holdings and CR 
England complained that mailing will cause unnecessary delays for CLP 
holders entering driving schools. ATA further noted that DHS does not 
require mailing in the REAL ID rules.
    FMCSA Response. FMCSA has removed the requirement that States issue 
initial CLPs and CDLs by mail. This change is consistent with DHS's 
REAL ID rules and provides States with more flexibility, without a 
demonstrated reduction in fraud prevention, because, presumably, the 
same documents that are presented to prove domicile are used to verify 
mailing addresses. In addition, this change will prevent delays in 
applicants receiving CDLs and CLPs and will reduce the States' cost of 
compliance.
4. CDL Testing Requirements for Out-of-State Driver Training School 
Students
    FMCSA proposed to add Sec.  383.79 to provide that a person who 
holds a CLP would be able to take the CDL skills test outside of his/
her State of domicile. The testing State would then send the skills 
test results to the State of domicile. The State of domicile would 
accept the results of the skills test and, if the applicant passed, 
would issue a CDL.
    Comments. Advocates and an individual driver supported this 
proposal because reciprocity would increase national uniformity. NADA 
and AMSA also supported the concept of reciprocity. However, this 
proposal generated significant negative comments. CVTA commented that 
lack of uniform State testing standards would promote shopping for a 
State with the lowest testing standards. It also commented that many 
States do not grant reciprocity for CDLs, instead requiring even 
experienced drivers to retest. ATA, CVTA and CTA preferred temporary 
nonresident CDLs as an alternative. These associations, a number of 
carriers, a driver trainer and an individual driver commented that the 
proposed rule would require costly and time-consuming travel as well as 
delays to starting company-administered training and employment. 
Several trainers praised Illinois's high standards and objected to any 
rule that would inhibit the State's ability to do what it deemed 
necessary.
    All of the State agencies that submitted comments had issues with 
the proposal. The principal complaint was that the individual States 
would lose control over the integrity of the testing process. States 
that employ stringent anti-fraud measures in the testing process object 
to being required to accept results from States that are relatively 
lax. States that had previous experience with testing fraud were 
particularly opposed. Texas commented that the proposal had the 
potential for a significant increase in fraud because the State that 
issued the CDL would have no recourse against testers outside its 
jurisdiction. Several States suggested that FMCSA change the 
requirement to permit, but not require, reciprocity. Several States 
also complained that the proposed rule would increase costs in terms of 
program, procedure and training changes. A number of States had 
specific concerns about the electronic transmission of information 
between States and the costs associated with implementing an electronic 
system.
    FMCSA Response. After careful consideration of these comments, 
FMCSA has determined that the final rule will remain as proposed. 
States are required to accept the results of a skills test administered 
to an applicant by any other State. FMCSA is confident that the 
upgraded skills test and anti-fraud standards required and implemented 
by this rule will improve and standardize both skills testing and fraud 
prevention, creating more uniformity across all States' CDL programs.
    In addition, FMCSA believes that the new rule will help reduce 
barriers to entry into the driver labor market. Under current law and 
regulations, a driver may only obtain a CDL or CLP from his/her State 
of domicile. The new rule will facilitate driver training for 
applicants unable to train in the State of domicile. In addition, 
training schools often provide applicants with use of a truck for 
testing purposes. For many applicants, this is the only feasible option 
for testing. If applicants are required to return to their States of 
domicile for testing, they would have to secure use of a truck, obtain 
insurance and/or incur the cost of renting a truck simply to take the 
test. For many this is logistically or financially prohibitive.
    The travel costs raised by carriers in their comments are not 
related to the proposed rule change. Currently, many States do not 
enforce the requirement that only the State of domicile may issue a CDL 
or CLP. As a result, drivers are avoiding the travel costs associated 
with the return to the State of domicile by obtaining CDLs from States 
other than their States of domicile, in violation of federal statute 
and FMCSA's rules. With or without the rule change, these costs exist. 
It does not appear unreasonable to require a driver applicant to return 
to his/her State of domicile because this is where, by definition, he/
she makes his/her permanent home and is the jurisdiction to which he/
she intends to return.
    FMCSA leaves it to the States to determine what secure electronic 
method of transmitting test scores works best for them. At least one 
State currently has an electronic database that can be used for the 
transmission of test results between States. Other States may prefer to 
use more basic methods of electronic transmission such as e-mail.
5. State Reciprocity for CLPs
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec.  384.214 to allow a person to obtain a 
CLP from his/her jurisdiction of licensure and then engage in CMV 
driver training located in whole or part in any State, similar to the 
reciprocity States grant other States' CDL holders who travel across 
State lines.
    Comments. South Carolina, Michigan, Advocates, NADA, CTA and two 
carriers support CLP reciprocity. CTA and a carrier commented that CLP 
reciprocity would reduce training and licensing costs and increase 
flexibility, but also suggested that States be able to issue temporary 
CLPs to driver-trainees domiciled in other States. OOIDA supports the 
proposed rule so long as it does not create an additional burden on the 
States or compromise the one driver/one license/one record principle.
    FMCSA Response. The final rule will remain as proposed: States will 
be required to grant reciprocity to CLPs issued in other States. This 
will permit a CLP holder to train in States other than his/her State of 
domicile. FMCSA believes that issuing temporary CLPs to driver-trainees 
domiciled out-of-State would violate the one driver/one license/one 
record principle.
6. Minimum Uniform Standards for Issuing a CLP
a. Passing the General Knowledge Test To Obtain a CLP
    FMCSA proposed adding new Sec.  383.25 and amending Sec. Sec.  
383.71 and 383.73 to require that every applicant successfully complete 
the CDL knowledge test before being issued a CLP. A driver who holds a 
valid non-CDL in his/her State of domicile would obtain a CLP from the 
State of domicile upon successful completion of a general CDL knowledge 
test.
    Comments. Advocates, two associations, two driver-trainers, a 
carrier and five States generally supported this proposal.
    FMCSA Response. The final rule will remain as proposed with the 
following clarification: A driver holding a valid CDL who seeks an 
upgrade for which a skills test is required must also pass the

[[Page 26860]]

appropriate knowledge test prior to obtaining a CLP. This is consistent 
with the new Sec.  383.25(d) which requires a CDL holder seeking an 
upgrade to his/her CDL to obtain a CLP if the upgrade requires a skills 
test.
b. Requiring the CLP To Be a Separate Document From the CDL or Non-CDL
    FMCSA proposed adding new Sec.  383.25 and amending Sec. Sec.  
383.151 and 383.153 to require that the CLP be a separate document from 
either the CDL or the non-CDL; contain the words ``Commercial Learner's 
Permit'' or ``CLP'' displayed prominently; and include a statement that 
it is not valid for driving a CMV unless presented with the underlying 
CDL or non-CDL.
    Comments. Advocates strongly supports the proposal. New York and 
Alabama commented that there is not enough room for the proposed 
language on the CLP. Tennessee commented that a two-part license would 
cause problems with tracking expiration dates, software upgrades and 
law enforcement officials having to review two documents. Georgia 
commented that the proposal may not be compatible with REAL ID because 
a driver may only hold one REAL ID-compliant identification document. 
Texas suggested having CLP holders surrender their underlying non-CDL 
documents and requiring States to issue one integrated document that 
would serve as both a CLP and non-CDL. Washington supports the proposal 
but notes that it will require changes to its document issuing process.
    FMCSA Response. The requirement remains as proposed--that the CLP 
be a separate document from the underlying license. This rule is not 
inconsistent with REAL ID because the license and the CLP are not two 
separate licenses; they are two parts of the same license. As a result, 
the CLP is not valid unless presented with the underlying license. 
Furthermore, the two documents share the same driver's license or 
record number. FMCSA believes that one integrated document would create 
problems since the CLP and non-CDL would likely have different 
expiration dates. Tracking expiration dates on separate documents 
should not present a significant problem because most States appear to 
do this under the current system. The standard language is necessary so 
that all parties checking the license (law enforcement, etc.) 
understand the purpose and limitations of the CLP.
c. CLP Document Should Be Tamperproof
    In accordance with section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU, FMCSA proposed 
amending Sec. Sec.  383.153 and 383.155 to require that CLP documents 
be tamperproof and that the content of the CLP documents be the same as 
the content of the CDL documents.
    Comments. Georgia and Florida support the proposal. Delaware 
commented that tamperproofing is expensive and that it is not necessary 
because the CLP is only used for a short period of time. Michigan 
described its current system, which pairs a secure underlying license 
with a paper CLP, as more than adequate and does not believe it is 
cost-effective to expend resources to tamperproof a temporary document.
    FMCSA Response. The tamperproofing requirement, which Congress 
required in SAFETEA-LU, remains as proposed.
d. Photograph on CLP
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec.  383.153 and adding new Sec.  384.227 
to require that States include a color photograph or digitized color 
image of the driver on CLPs.
    Comments. Advocates asked FMCSA to provide data or information 
showing that a photograph or digitized image will substantially deter 
fraud. Pennsylvania and Michigan do not currently require a photograph 
on the CLP and object on the grounds that the change would be 
burdensome. Michigan argued that a photograph on the CLP would be 
unnecessary if the underlying CDL or non-CDL has a photograph. DHS 
objected to having a State issue two photograph IDs to a single person, 
stating that it would violate the one driver/one license/one record 
principle.
    FMCSA Response. After studying these comments and further 
considering the risk of fraud, FMCSA has decided not only to remove the 
requirement for a color photo on the CLP document, but also to prohibit 
a photo on the CLP document. FMCSA has determined that eliminating the 
photo makes the CLP more secure. Otherwise, a State would be issuing a 
single person two State-issued photo IDs and someone other than the 
record holder could present the CLP document as a photo ID to establish 
identity or for other purposes. This change also complies with the 
spirit and intent of one driver/one license principle: Drivers will not 
be issued more than one photo ID. The CLP is a two-part license 
comprised of the CLP document and the underlying CDL or non-CDL 
together, and the CLP document must be presented with the underlying 
CDL or non-CDL to be valid. The CLP document will have the same 
driver's license number as the underlying CDL or non-CDL as well as 
language stating the two-part nature of the document, making this 
relationship clear.
e. Recording the CLP in CDLIS
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec. Sec.  383.71, 383.73(h), 384.205, 
384.206, 284.207, and 384.225 to require States to create a CDLIS 
record for a CLP and to require States to post all CLP transactions to 
CDLIS.
    Comments. Advocates, Tennessee and Georgia supported the proposal, 
as did South Carolina, which already complies with the proposal. 
Delaware objected to the requirement because of additional costs. CTA 
generally supported the idea behind the proposal but noted that it 
would be burdensome to the States. Arkansas commented that the proposal 
would require it to perform CDLIS checks before issuing a CLP, which 
would result in longer lines and additional expense.
    FMCSA Response. The rule's provisions requiring recording the CLP 
in CDLIS, which Congress required in SAFETEA-LU, remain as proposed.
7. Maximum Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for CLP and CDL
a. Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for a CLP
    FMCSA proposed adding new Sec.  383.25 to require that States make 
the initial CLP valid for 180 days and that they may renew it for an 
additional 90 days without requiring the CLP holder to retake the 
general and endorsement knowledge tests.
    Comments. NADA and CRST supported the proposal. Florida supported 
the proposal as long as it does not allow unlimited re-issuance of CLPs 
where applicants continue to pass the knowledge tests. Michigan 
requested clarification as to whether an applicant would have to take 
the knowledge test again to reset the cycle. California, New York, 
Virginia and the Army commented that the initial period was too short. 
Oregon, Illinois, Georgia and Wood CC suggested a one-year, initial 
non-renewable period. Minnesota specifically recommended a 9-month 
validity period. Advocates and CR England suggested a 90-day initial 
period with a 90-day renewal period. South Dakota, Georgia and Elgin CC 
commented that the renewal period was too short. Idaho and Washington 
supported a 6-month renewal period. The Florence S-D recommended two 6-
month renewal periods. Wisconsin complained that the validity cycle was 
too short. South Carolina objected because it would require a change to 
existing systems.

[[Page 26861]]

    FMCSA Response. The FMCSA is making no change to the initial CLP 
validity period of 180 days but is changing the final rule to allow the 
CLP to be renewed for an additional 180 days (instead of 90 days) 
without requiring the CLP holder to retake the general and/or 
endorsement knowledge tests. This will give CLP holders more time to 
train and take the CDL skills test, and is generally in line with the 
majority of the comments, which recommend some combination of initial 
validity and renewal periods to a maximum of one year. Also, the longer 
validity period will ease the burden on DMV resources. The number of 
times a State permits re-issuance of a CLP after an applicant passes 
the knowledge test is not addressed in this rulemaking and is left to 
the States' discretion.
b. Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for a CDL
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec.  383.73 to establish maximum initial 
and renewal periods of 8 years for CDLs.
    Comments. ATA, AMSA and CRST support this provision. Advocates 
opposed it on the basis that this period will increase the potential 
for unsafe drivers to evade detection and magnify the possibility of 
fraud and the amount of time that fraudulent CDL actions can continue 
undetected. Missouri commented that because CDL drivers must be 
medically examined and certified every two years, the disparity between 
the duration of the CDL and the medical examination could prove to be 
cumbersome for SDLAs, if the medical certification is ultimately linked 
to CDL issuance. Georgia and Michigan support the proposal, but 
suggested that the final rule incorporate REAL ID by reference. Texas 
recommended that the term be for five years so it matches the CDL 
expiration date to the TSA Hazardous Materials Endorsement background 
check requirement.
    FMCSA Response. The requirement for maximum issuance and renewal 
periods of 8 years remains in the final rule. Some commenters 
misunderstood the proposal: Under the new rule 8 years is the maximum, 
but States are free to set shorter validity periods. This will affect 
only a small number of States that currently permit validity periods 
longer than 8 years. Finally, although FMCSA declines to adopt REAL ID 
by reference wholly or in part, this provision is consistent with 
maximum validity periods required by REAL ID.
8. Establish a Minimum Age for CLP
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec.  383.71(a) to require that a CLP 
holder be at least 18 years old, the minimum age to operate a CMV in 
intrastate commerce. The Agency also proposed to apply the exceptions 
and exemptions from the age requirements for interstate commerce, 
granted in Sec. Sec.  390.3(f) and 391.2 and subpart G of part 391, to 
the issuance of a CLP.
    Comments. ATA and two carriers, a citizen, a driver and a driver 
trainer supported the proposal. Six States commented that they are 
already in compliance with the proposed rule. AMSA endorsed the 
proposal, saying it would help enforce the current age limit on driving 
of CMVs. Advocates and the Transportation Defense Lawyers Network were 
concerned that allowing CLPs for driver as young as 18 when they could 
not drive in interstate commerce until the age of 21 would be used to 
justify lowering the age of interstate CDL driving. TCA urged FMCSA to 
develop an experimental program to determine the feasibility of using 
drivers 18 to 20 years old in interstate commerce. California and 
Illinois commented that the rule will create hardship in the 
agricultural community.
    FMCSA Response. The proposed requirement remains in the final rule. 
In the NPRM, FMCSA only proposed setting the minimum age for CLPs at 
18. Lowering the minimum age for CDLs is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking. For a discussion of the rule's applicability to the 
agricultural community, please see Section 19.a. below (Applicability 
to agricultural sector).
9. Preconditions to Taking the CDL Skills Test
a. CLP Prerequisite for CDL
    FMCSA proposed adding new Sec.  383.25(d) to require that obtaining 
a CLP is a precondition to the issuance or upgrade of a CDL.
    Comments. Idaho suggested that there should be an exclusion for 
drivers seeking upgrades or who have previously held CDLs. Delaware 
recommended that this requirement apply only to those who have never 
held a CDL. Florida did not oppose the requirement, but commented that 
it may adversely affect school districts and other organizations from 
hiring new people. New York and Wisconsin commented that this 
requirement would entail modifications to State systems. A carrier 
commented that CLPs are unnecessary, without further explanation.
    FMCSA Response. FMCSA has modified the final rule to state that, 
with respect to upgrades, a CLP is a precondition to the issuance only 
if the upgrade requires a skills test (as opposed to a knowledge test). 
Where skills testing is a part of the licensing process, FMCSA believes 
it is important for drivers to have the opportunity to practice on the 
public roads in a CMV under the supervision of an experienced driver. 
FMCSA believes that a CLP is an important document to distinguish 
between CDL holders and driver-trainees who must be accompanied by CDL 
holders.
b. CLP Holder Accompanied by CDL Holder
    FMCSA proposed adding new Sec.  383.25(a) to require that the CLP 
holder be accompanied by the holder of a valid CDL with the proper CDL 
group and endorsement.
    Comments. Wisconsin opposes this requirement and commented that 
permitting unaccompanied CLP holders can facilitate driver training. 
Advocates does not believe that having a CDL holder accompany a CLP 
holder provides sufficient assurances of safety because no standards 
exist for the accompanying CDL holder's driving skills, qualifications 
or length of time he/she has had his/her CDL.
    FMCSA Response. The final rule remains as proposed. Safety 
considerations outweigh convenience during driver training. FMCSA does 
not believe that it is safe to permit inexperienced drivers who have 
not yet passed the CDL skills test to drive unaccompanied. Because 
qualifications of the accompanying CDL holder were not addressed in the 
NPRM, they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
c. Waiting Period To Take Skills Test
    FMCSA proposed adding new Sec.  383.25(e) to require that the CLP 
holder is not eligible to take the CDL skills test within 30 days of 
issuance of the CLP.
    Comments. Tennessee, Georgia, Michigan and Advocates supported the 
30-day waiting period. Twenty-one commenters opposed the 30-day waiting 
period. ATA and CVTA argued that the 30-day waiting period penalizes 
driver-trainees who successfully complete their training less than a 
month after obtaining their CLPs. ATA, NE Agri-Business, and NSTA 
commented that delaying the skills testing also means that driver 
training graduates will be forced to postpone their employment and 
subsequent ability to begin earning wages. It also will be costly for 
employers, who must either pay the drivers they have trained for not 
working while they wait to be licensed or risk losing them to another 
industry. NE Agri-Business and CVTA argued

[[Page 26862]]

FMCSA offered no empirical evidence that trainees are better drivers or 
are better prepared for the skills test after 30 days' practice. 
Schneider recommended that FMCSA change the waiting period to 14 days, 
to avoid skills degradation between training and testing. The Joint 
School District recommended a waiting period of 10 days between taking 
the written exam and the skills test. Several commenters opposed the 
30-day waiting period because classroom training is usually before a 
student applies for the CLP and, based on the hours in the proposed 
entry level training rule, the behind the wheel training will take no 
more than two weeks.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA has amended the provision in the final rule 
to grant eligibility to take the CDL skills test 14 days after 
obtaining a CLP. FMCSA understands that some CLP holders may acquire 
driving skills more quickly than others. Regardless, FMCSA encourages 
CLP holders to train for as long as necessary to gain sufficient CDL 
driving skills. However, those who feel ready are eligible, but not 
required, to take the skills test 14 days after obtaining the CLP. 
FMCSA does not believe this will compromise safety because only 
qualified drivers will be able to pass the skills tests given in 
accordance with the enhanced standards mandated elsewhere in this rule.
d. Relationship to Entry Level Driver Training Rulemaking
    On December 17, 2007, FMCSA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking addressing Entry Level Driver Training. This proposed rule 
would require both classroom and behind-the-wheel training for drivers 
seeking a CDL for the first time.
    Comments. Commenters requested clarification about the relationship 
between this rule and the Entry-Level Driver Training rule.
    FMCSA Response. The final rule for Entry Level Driver Training is 
still under development. While these are separate rules, FMCSA will 
ensure that any future requirements for driver training are completely 
compatible with the requirements of this rule.
10. Limit Endorsements on CLP to Passenger (P) Only
    FMCSA proposed adding new Sec.  383.25 and amending Sec.  383.93 to 
require that CLP holders not be eligible for any endorsement other than 
the passenger (P) endorsement.
    Comments. Advocates and CRST support the proposal. A number of 
entities supported a prohibition on hazardous material endorsements on 
CLPs but objected to prohibiting other endorsements. Six associations 
commented that the proposed limit on CLP endorsements would cause 
delays in providing employees necessary tanker, hazardous material, and 
school bus training, and would compound the problems the industry has 
in hiring and keeping full-time CDL employees. CVTA and ATA stated that 
this prohibition would create problems for drivers who wish to add an 
endorsement to their license as well as the motor carriers that employ 
them. They further commented that it would require a costly, time-
consuming, two-stage training process and could have an unintended 
consequence of shifting endorsement training away from more 
standardized means of instruction such as at driver training schools. A 
driver trainer commented that the limit on CLP endorsements would make 
training very difficult. Schneider commented that in its experience, 
training CLP holders with tanker endorsements produces safer drivers. 
CR England asked FMCSA to clarify that the prohibition against a CLP 
driver carrying passengers does not apply to ``trainers, trainees and 
Federal/State Auditors/Inspectors.'' California commented that drivers 
should be able to train on the type of vehicle they will eventually be 
driving. Georgia supports additional endorsements so that drivers could 
get more behind-the-wheel training. New York, Oregon, and a school 
district recommended permitting a tanker endorsement. Illinois wants 
more flexibility in allowing training on tankers and double/triple 
trailers. Two driver trainers objected to prohibiting training on 
vehicles requiring endorsements because it sets up a two-step training 
process. One driver trainer suggested permitting CLP holders to obtain 
knowledge test endorsements, but that they should not be valid until 
the driver obtains a full CDL. A number of States had concerns about 
school bus drivers not being able to train on school buses without an 
endorsement. New York expressed concern about not having the school bus 
(S) endorsement on the CLP. The State said the presence of the S 
endorsement would be proof of the applicant passing the knowledge test 
before taking the skills test.
    FMCSA Response. The final rule includes the following in addition 
to maintaining the P endorsement FMCSA originally proposed:
    A CLP holder may obtain a school bus (S) endorsement with a no-
passenger restriction. This change promotes consistency because the P 
and the S endorsements both require knowledge and skills testing. Also, 
it is logical to permit an S endorsement because it will provide proof 
that the CLP holder passed the S endorsement knowledge test before 
taking the S endorsement skills test. The final rule clarifies that the 
no-passenger restriction on the P and S endorsements does not apply to 
instructors, examiners, other trainees or Federal/State auditors/
inspectors.
    A CLP holder may also obtain a tank vehicle (N) endorsement with 
the restriction that the tanker must be empty and must have been purged 
if it previously contained hazardous materials. An N endorsement on the 
CLP with an ``empty'' restriction balances safety concerns with 
industry needs to train drivers on the type of vehicles they will 
eventually be driving, but does not allow them to train under cargo-
laden conditions until they have learned the basics of operating the 
vehicle. By limiting endorsements on the CLP, FMCSA intends for drivers 
to learn how to operate a CMV safely before taking on more dangerous 
operations requiring higher skill levels. It is permissible to take the 
knowledge test for endorsements at the same time as the knowledge test 
for the CLP, however, the driver must obtain a CDL before driving 
vehicles requiring endorsements (other than those set forth above).
11. Methods of Administering CDL Tests
    FMCSA proposed amending Sec.  383.133 to prohibit the use of 
interpreters during the administration of the knowledge and skills 
tests, and to require that applicants be able to understand and respond 
to verbal commands in English by the skills test examiner.
    Comments. South Carolina, New York, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, 
Michigan, Texas, ATA, Advocates, CVTA, CR England, Elgin CC, Driver 
Holdings, three individuals and two drivers all support the proposal. 
OOIDA commented that understanding basic commands in English does not 
sufficiently demonstrate proficiency. Washington requested that FMCSA 
clarify whether the definition of ``interpreter'' includes bilingual 
testers and whether the NPRM proposed that skills testing be conducted 
in English only. Florida opposed that portion of the proposal that 
requires that the skills test be given in English only. Although it 
already prohibits the use of interpreters during skills tests, it 
permits examiners to interact with applicants in other languages.
    FMCSA Response. FMCSA has modified the final rule to make clear 
that examiners may interact with applicants only in English during the 
skills test. The OIG's 2002 report on

[[Page 26863]]

improving CDL testing and standards noted that some States permit 
bilingual testers to test in languages other than English, while other 
States do not permit this practice. Under the final rule this practice 
is prohibited; bilingual or multilingual examiners are not permitted to 
test in languages other than English. This clarification is consistent 
with 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2), which requires drivers to have certain 
minimum English language skills and will promote national uniformity in 
testing standards. It is worth noting that Sec.  391.11(b)(2) is 
currently under Agency review. If the Agency makes changes to Sec.  
391.11(b)(2), it may also propose corresponding changes to Se